Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama and copyrights

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama and copyrights



    Obama Administration Declares Proposed IP Treaty a 'National Security' Secret
    By David Kravets EmailMarch 12, 2009 | 11:21:09 PM
    Bushama



    President Barack Obama came into office in January promising a new era of openness.

    But now, like Bush before him, Obama is playing the national security card to hide details of the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated across the globe.

    The White House this week declared (.pdf) the text of the proposed treaty a "properly classified" national security secret, in rejecting a Freedom of Information Act request by Knowledge Ecology International.

    "Please be advised the documents you seek are being withheld in full," wrote Carmen Suro-Bredie, chief FOIA officer in the White House's Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

    The national security claim is stunning, given that the treaty negotiations have included the 27 member states of the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand, all of whom presumably have access to the "classified" information.

    In early January, the Bush administration made the same claim in rejecting (.pdf) a similar FOIA request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

    If ratified, leaked documents posted on WikiLeaks and other comments suggest the proposed trade accord would criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing, subject iPods to border searches and allow internet service providers to monitor their customers' communications.

    In his first days in office, Obama publicly committed himself to transparency, instructing government agencies to err on the side of public access and divulge information whenever possible under the Freedom of Information Act. Obama recently released a trove of documents relating to the Bush administration's rationale for torture of enemy combatants and other abuses.

    At the same time, though, Justice Department lawyers have been arguing in court that the "state secrets privilege" should bar lawsuits over the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program.
    and this



    Obama: Stop Filling Administration with RIAA Insiders
    By David Kravets EmailApril 02, 2009 | 2:00:43 PM

    Obamajurv Nearly two dozen public interest groups, trade pacts and library groups urged President Barack Obama on Thursday to quit filling his administration with insiders plucked from the Recording Industry Association of America.

    The demands came a week after the Justice Department, fresh with two RIAA attorneys in its No. 2 and No. 3 positions, announced the administration's support of $150,000 in damages for each music track purloined on a peer-to-peer file sharing program. The administration, moreover, has just declared as classified the inner workings of worldwide intellectual property trade pact. And Hollywood is urging Obama to embrace internet filtering as the content industry seeks to cut internet access to repeat copyright violators.

    Still, Obama has yet to fill the all-important role of copyright czar, a new cabinet-level position approved by Congress late last year. Other unfilled vacancies dealing with intellectual property rest in the Patent and Trademark Office, the United States Trade Representative and the State Department.

    Groups such as Public Knowledge, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Consumer Electronics Association, the Wikimedia Foundation and, among others, the American Library Association, are demanding Obama to look outside the content industry when filling up his administration.

    "In selecting these officials, we ask you to consider that individuals who support overly broad IP protection might favor established distribution models at the expense of technological innovators, creative artists, writers, musicians, filmmakers, and an increasingly participatory public," the 19 groups wrote (.pdf) Obama Thursday. "Overzealous expansion and enforcement of copyright, for example, can quash innovative information technologies, the development and marketing of new and useful devices, and the creation of new works, as well as prohibit the public from accessing and using its cultural heritage."

    The group are: American Association of Law Libraries, American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, Center for Democracy and Technology, Computer and Communications Industry Association, Consumer Electronics Association, Consumers Union, EDUCAUSE, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Entertainment Consumers Association, Essential Action, Home Recording Rights Coalition, Internet Archive, Knowledge Ecology International, NetCoalition, Public Knowledge, Special Libraries Association. U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Wikimedia Foundation.

  • #2
    “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
    "Capitalism ho!"

    Comment


    • #3
      So what, I've already illegally downloaded everything I need to. Ban away!
      Unbelievable!

      Comment


      • #4
        I no longer use P2P.

        The last time I did was for porn.

        JM
        Jon Miller-
        I AM.CANADIAN
        GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

        Comment


        • #5
          COPYRIGHT CZAR!?

          When the hell did that happen???
          No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

          Comment


          • #6
            President Obama reportedly gave an iPod, loaded with 40 show tunes, to England's Queen Elizabeth II as a gift. Did he violate the law when he did so?

            You know your copyright laws are broken when there is no easy answer to this question.

            Traditionally, it has been the job of the "first sale" doctrine to enable gift giving -- that's the provision of copyright law that entitles the owner of a CD, book, or other copyrighted work, to give it away (or resell it, for that matter), notwithstanding the copyright owner's exclusive right of distribution.

            In the digital era, however, first sale has been under siege, with copyright owners (and even the Copyright Office) arguing that it has no place in a world where "ownership" has been replaced by "licenses" and hand-to-hand exchanges have been replaced by computer-mediated exchanges that necessarily make copies. But it's precisely because first sale is central to everyday activities like giving an iPod to a friend, selling a used CD on eBay, or borrowing a DVD from a library, that EFF and others have been fighting for it in case after case.

            So, how does President Obama fare in this? It's nearly impossible to figure out. If he'd simply purchased a "greatest hits" CD of show tunes and given it to the Queen, the first sale doctrine would have taken care of it. But because digital technology is involved here, suddenly it's a legal quagmire. (And, for the remainder of this discussion, I am going to set aside the Presidential immunity issues and the UK copyright law issues, which make it even more of a quagmire.)

            First, let's imagine that the President (or his staff) bought the 40 show tunes from the iTunes music store. Do you "own" the music that you buy from iTunes? The nearly 9,000 words of legalese to which you agree before buying don't answer that question (an oversight? I doubt it). Copyright owners have consistently argued in court that many digital products (even physical "promo" CDs!) are "licensed," not "owned," and therefore you're not entitled to resell them or give them away. (And the Amazon MP3 Store terms of service are even worse for consumers than iTunes -- those terms specifically purport to strip you of "ownership" and forbid any "redistribution.")

            Second, even if the first sale doctrine applies to iTunes downloads, what about the additional copies made on the iPod? iTunes does not download directly to an iPod. So President Obama's staff made an additional copy onto the Queen's intended iPod. How are those copies excused? The iTunes terms of service say that downloads are "only for personal, noncommercial use." Is giving a copy to a head of state a "personal" use? Seems more like a "diplomatic use," doesn't it? So copyright owners could argue that the copy on the iPod was not authorized, because it was beyond the scope of the iTunes "license." And according to the typical rightsholder argument, any use beyond the scope of the "license" is a copyright infringement.

            Perhaps it's a fair use? I'd certainly take that view. But does it matter here whether President Obama's staffer first deleted the copy that is still on her computer? Should that matter? (It does not matter for first sale purposes, which is one reason why the first sale doctrine answers questions so much more clearly.)

            Third, what about a breach of contract? As I mentioned above, some might argue that this "use" of iTunes downloads breaches the "personal use" limitation in the agreement. And if it is a breach of the iTunes contract, can the copyright owners sue President Obama as "third party beneficiaries" of the iTunes contract? It's not clear. (In the Amazon terms of service, copyright owners are specifically made third party beneficiaries, which appears to be an attempt to clear a path for record labels to sue Amazon customers for breaches of the contract.)

            And all of this even before you start asking what happens when the Queen connects her new iPod to her computer, thereby making even more copies (the UK, after all, lacks a fair use doctrine)... UPDATE: Prof. Michael Froomkin points out that the Queen enjoys sovereign immunity under UK law because she is, well, the sovereign.

            Of course, no one thinks that copyright owners are going to send lawyers after either President Obama or the Queen over this. But none of us should want a world where even our leaders--much less the rest of us--can't figure out how copyright law operates in their daily lives.


            President Obama reportedly gave an iPod, loaded with 40 show tunes, to England's Queen Elizabeth II as a gift. Did he violate the law when he did so?You know your copyright laws are broken when there is no easy answer to this question.Traditionally, it has been the job of the "first sale" doctrine...

            Comment


            • #7
              Didn't you make a comment about this on the other thread?
              “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
              "Capitalism ho!"

              Comment


              • #8
                No.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Ok.
                  “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
                  "Capitalism ho!"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Mad Monk View Post
                    COPYRIGHT CZAR!?

                    When the hell did that happen???
                    No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by The Mad Monk View Post
                      COPYRIGHT CZAR!?

                      When the hell did that happen???

                      When did the fetish come about with using the word Czar? Was the Drug Czar the first? Can't we come up with something better than to use the word Czar.


                      Are Russians amused at this?
                      Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We are evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that. --Saul Tigh

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sprayber View Post
                        When did the fetish come about with using the word Czar? Was the Drug Czar the first? Can't we come up with something better than to use the word Czar.


                        Are Russians amused at this?
                        Czar is overused. Lets use Kaiser, or Shah, or Sultan instead, mix things up.
                        If you don't like reality, change it! me
                        "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                        "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                        "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by GePap View Post
                          Czar is overused. Lets use Kaiser, or Shah, or Sultan instead, mix things up.

                          The Drug Shah
                          The Drug Kaiser
                          The Drug Sultan
                          The Drug Prince
                          The Drug King (too close to King pin?)
                          Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We are evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that. --Saul Tigh

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            We're Americans, we don't need no stinkin' kings (or their foreign namesakes)!!
                            “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                            - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Apparently, there was an Energy Czar back in 1973.
                              No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X